[steveegg]

Because you are silly?

Silly because...

• ...I don't take the claims that Miers' judicial philosophy is conservative on blind faith, with no writings to back those claims up?
• ...I find what little is known about her leanings is rather contradictory?
• ...I question why, not a week after the Senate confirmed Chief Justice Roberts so soundly that there was no filibuster, no RINO defections, and 22 RATs voting for him, we have to settle for that confused blank slate rather than finding someone at least as judicially-conservative as Roberts?
• ...I find it troubling she came recommended by Senate DemonRAT leader Harry Reid (who voted against Roberts)?
• ...in looking back over 50 years' worth of Republican SCOTUS nominees, going back to President Eisenhower, I can only find judicial conservatives nominated half the time?

Do you really want me to go on, or should I wait for the first 10 years of rulings?

[Ninian Dryhope]

Silly because you are worried just because the President refused to be trapped by a dumb question by a liberal member of the MSM.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"...I don't take the claims that Miers' judicial philosophy is conservative on blind faith, with no writings to back those claims up?"

If you wanted to know what really makes a person tick, which would you rather have?

A chance to read somethings that that person had written?

or

The chance to work with that person under many conditions for many hours over many years?

I do not really care one way or the other what you think in regards to Miers, since you are not the one who is doing the nominating.

It is what President Bush knows about Miers that concerns me, and I think he knows her heart and character and her talents from his years of spending time with her under trying conditions, so he does not need to read her writings about this or that topic to know that as far as he is concerned, she is the best person for the job.

[TSchmereL]

Exactly.

Bush could have nominated any one he wanted. It is the exception, not the rule, that nominees are rejected. It is rare. It just does not happen that often.

Also, Miers is, by definition, a crony. Even if she is a great Constitutional thinker, she is still a crony. Unless we are ready to say that cronyism just dosn't matter anymore, how can we support this?